The complaint to the European Personnel Selection Office  

1. In September 2017, the complainant participated in a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of EU civil servants as building management engineers (including environmental and services engineers)[1].

2. EPSO informed the complainant that his application had not been awarded a sufficient score for him to pass the `talent screener’ stage of the selection procedure. This is the stage at which the selection board[2] assesses candidates’ professional experience on the basis of their responses to detailed questions[3].

3. The complainant requested a review of his score. The selection board revised the complainant’s score, but this was still one point below the minimum score required for admission to the next stage of the selection procedure.

4. The complainant then made an administrative complaint[4] to EPSO on the matter, arguing that:

a) EPSO had not assessed his answers to the talent screener questions correctly;

b) candidates´ answers to the talent screener questions were not assessed in a consistent way, as there were: i) significant differences in the assessment made by different selection board members; ii) unjustified divergences in the points awarded to the same candidate initially and after a request for review;  

c) the selection procedure was not very transparent, as EPSO had decided to extend the deadline for applications without any apparent reason. This led to an extremely high number of applications and, as a result, EPSO had to assign the task of the evaluation of applications to numerous selection board members, hence the divergences in the assessment process;

d) the maximum number of characters allowed for an answer to each of the talent screener questions was very limited, resulting in the elimination of candidates who, due to insufficient space, did simply not have the chance to describe properly their professional experience. In the complainant´s view, EPSO should have assessed candidates´ professional experience on the basis not only of their answers to the talent screener questions but also of the relevant section (`Professional Experience´) of the application form;

e) instead of excluding candidates on the basis of a subjective evaluation of the talent screener section, EPSO should have organised objective computer-based tests upfront, an option expressly provided for in the notice of competition.

5. The complainant also requested EPSO to communicate to him the scoring grid, as well as the names of the members of the selection board who had evaluated his answers. He wanted to be sure that there was no conflict of interest, such as his answers having been scored by staff members from the EU institution where he currently works.

EPSO’s response to the complainant

6. In May 2018, EPSO rejected the administrative complaint. EPSO stated, in summary, that selection boards have wide discretion when assessing candidates´ professional experience. A selection board´s decision that a candidate has not been successful is a value judgment which can only be reviewed in case of a manifest error. EPSO found no manifest error in this case.

7. EPSO explained that the talent screener procedure aims to select the candidates whose profile best matches the profile sought. All candidates have to answer the same series of questions in the talent screener, which are based on the selection criteria. Communication of the marks obtained in the various phases of the selection procedure, including the talent screener, constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the selection board's decision is based. The marking criteria form an integral part of the comparative assessment of candidates made by the selection board and they are therefore covered by the secrecy of the selection board's proceedings. The scoring grid for the talent screener could thus not be disclosed.

8. EPSO also stated that the notice of competition, which describes the selection procedure and the profile sought, clearly set out that the selection based on qualifications was based solely on the information provided by candidates in reply to the talent screener questions.

9. Regarding the complainant´s allegations of lack of objectivity and credibility of the evaluation, EPSO stated that, as in all selection procedures, measures were taken to ensure that all candidates were treated equally and that the marking was objective: there was a pre-defined scoring grid; the same assessment criteria and methodology were applied to all candidates; candidates were anonymous to the selection board and the final decision was taken collectively by the selection board.

10. As to the complainant´s allegation of a potential conflict of interest, EPSO specifically referred to the fact that the marking was done anonymously and that the final decision was taken collectively by the selection board. In addition, EPSO pointed out that the fact that a selection board member has worked with one of the candidates does not necessarily imply that they have a personal interest which might call into question their impartiality. Requiring that selection board members have no connection whatsoever to any of the candidates would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find people for selection boards in some specialised fields.

11. Finally, regarding the organisational aspects of the selection procedure, EPSO explained that the decisions on the deadline for applications, on the organisation of the computer-based tests and on the number of characters for replying to the talent screener questions are issues falling within the discretion and competence of EPSO. 

12. Dissatisfied with EPSO´s response to his administrative complaint, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in June 2018. He wants EPSO to recalculate the points given to three of his answers to the talent screener questions and to admit him to the next stage of the selection procedure. He also wants EPSO to improve its procedures on the basis of the issues raised by him in his administrative complaint.

The European Ombudsman's findings

On the assessment of the complainant’s talent screener answers

13.  The selection board enjoys a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience on the basis of the selection criteria set out in the notice of competition[5]. The margin of discretion given to the selection board means that the Ombudsman can only question the assessment done by the selection board in case of a manifest error[6]. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that, in assessing the complainant´s professional experience, the selection board made such a manifest error. The fact that the selection board gave additional points to one of the complainant’s talent screener answers following his request for review does not constitute an indication that there would be more errors in its assessment (see also point 20 below).

14. The selection board is bound by the notice of competition. The notice of competition in this case clearly stated that “[t]he selection based on qualifications [i.e. Talent Screener] will be carried out ..., using solely the information provided in [the] Talent Screener section. [Candidates] should therefore include all relevant information in [their] Talent Screener answers, even if already mentioned in other sections of [their] application”[7]. The complainant´s argument that the selection board was wrong to base its assessment of his professional experience solely on his answers to the talent screener questions (and not also on the information in his application form) is thus not valid.

On the non-disclosure of the scoring grid

15. The proceedings of the selection board are covered by secrecy[8] in order to protect the selection board from any external pressure and, thus, to allow it to do its work independently and objectively. This secrecy precludes disclosure of details relating to selection boards’ individual or comparative assessments of candidates in staff selection procedures.

16. In this context, the marks obtained at the various stages in a staff selection procedure constitute an adequate statement of the reasons for a selection board’s decision in relation to a particular candidate[9]. The marks enable candidates to know how they have performed and to ascertain that they have not in fact obtained the number of marks required to be admitted to any subsequent stages of a staff selection procedure[10].

17. In this case, EPSO has provided the complainant with the selection criteria and corresponding `weightings’ set by the selection board, with a detailed breakdown of his score (both before and after his request for review), as well as with the threshold for being admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure. EPSO has thus given the complainant sufficient reasons for his exclusion from the selection procedure and its refusal to give the complainant access to the detailed scoring grid is reasonable.

On the non-disclosure of the names of the selection board members who evaluated the complainant’s talent screener answers  

18. The complainant wants to be given the names of the Selection Board members who assessed his talent screener answers, in order to check whether there were any conflicts of interest. As EPSO explained, the objectivity of the marking procedure is ensured through anonymity and collective decision making by the selection board. In that regard, it should also be noted that the fact that a selection board member works for the same institution as one or several candidates does not automatically mean that there is a conflict of interest situation or even a bias. Once the names of the selection board members were published on EPSO’s website, the complainant could have turned to EPSO if he had a particular reason for considering that any of them were in a conflict of interest situation, which he did not do. On the basis of the above, EPSO´s response to the complainant´s request is reasonable.

On the alleged lack of consistency in the assessment of candidates

19. The complainant has not substantiated his argument that there were significant differences in the assessment made by different selection board members. In this regard, EPSO has explained that the final assessment of a candidate’s talent screener answers was done collectively by the selection board.

20. In addition, in line with paragraph 13 above, the fact that a request for review led to an adjustment of the score is not proof of inconsistency, but it rather shows that the procedure was well managed and that mistakes were corrected at source. It must also be noted that because of the predefined `weighting´ of each selection criterion (usually ranging from 1 to 3), a few additional points at the review stage could lead to a significant change of the final score[11], which does not, however, suggest that there were unjustified divergences as argued by the complainant.

On organisational aspects of the selection procedure

21. EPSO has wide discretion in deciding the rules and conditions under which a selection procedure is organised^_[12]. Such conditions should, in general, be in the interest of the EU civil service and, where relevant, be clearly set out in the notice of competition.

22.  Regarding the computer-based tests, the notice of competition clearly stated that the stage at which these tests would be organised would be dependent on the number of candidates[13]. 

23. As to the maximum number of characters allowed for answering each of the talent screener questions and the complainant’s argument that this number was too limited to adequately describe his extensive professional experience, it is noted that 4000 characters (that is, almost two A4 pages) was given for the answer to each of the talent screener questions. This is considered a reasonable limit, which should be sufficient to allow candidates to describe their relevant experience, particularly given that each of the talent screener questions concerned a different type of specific experience. It is candidates´ responsibility to single out, among the various duties and tasks performed throughout their professional lives, those that fit, in terms of relevance, each of the talent screener questions.

24. EPSO’s choice to extend the time-limit for candidates to apply to the selection procedure also clearly falls within its discretion and cannot be questioned on the basis of the complainant’s (unsubstantiated) argument that this led to such a high number of candidates that EPSO could not manage the selection procedure properly.

25. Based on the information provided by the complainant and the above analysis, the Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in this case. The complainant’s wish to be readmitted to the selection procedure and his call for changed procedures cannot be sustained[14].

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

Strasbourg, 03/12/2018

 

 

 

[1] EPSO/AD/342/17

[2] Each selection process has its own selection board, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage of the procedure and for drawing up the final list of successful candidates. More information at: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2047_en

[3] Talent screener is usually used by EPSO in selection procedures for specialist profiles. As part of their application, candidates provide responses to detailed questions about professional competence and experience. These responses are then assessed by the selection board to identify the candidates whose profile best matches the duties and selection criteria set out in the competition notice. More information at: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2711_en

[4] Under Article 90(2) of the Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), consolidated version available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501 (`Staff Regulations´)

[5] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999, Mertens v Commission, T-244/97, ECLI:EU:T:1999:27, paragraph 44; judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005, De Stefano v Commission, T-25/03, ECLI: EU:T:2005:168, paragraph 34.

[6] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005, Gibault v Commission, T-294/03, ECLI:EU:T:2005:190, paragraph 41. See also Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 14/2010/ANA against the European Personnel Selection Office, paragraph 14 (available at:

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/10427/html.bookmark#_ftnref5).

[7] See p. 4 of the notice of competition [under 4, “Selection based on qualifications (Talent Screener)”]. Similarly, the instructions given to candidates, in the application form, for filling in the Talent Screener section make it clear that “[s]coring is based SOLELY on the information you provide in your answers within this Talent Screener section. References to other answers within Talent Sreener or to other parts or your application will not be considered” (emphasis in the original) (see `Talent Screener´ section of the application form).

[8] Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

[9] See judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012, Mata Blanco v Commission, F-65/10, ECLI:EU:F:2012:178, paragraph 107.  

[10] See, for example, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2004, Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, T-19/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:49, paragraph 33.  

[11] In the complainant´s case, for example, two additional points awarded to him for a single answer, following his request for review, raised his total score from 65 to 71, as the weighting of that specific question was 3. 

[12] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2013, BV v Commission, F-133/11, ECLI:EU:F:2013:199, paragraph 50; judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013, CB v Commission, F-73/11 ECLI:EU:F:2013:50, paragraph 81. 

[13] See p. 3 of the notice of competition, under 2): “If the number of candidates is below [a certain] threshold, the [computer-based] tests will be held at the assessment centre ...”.

[14] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with Article 11 of the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions.